Letter fails to recognize different perspectives

As a Nigerian-born American citizen, my life experiences living on three continents among so many different people are distinct and unique. It is from those experiences I draw my stance on events and occurrences. One could never honestly expect Sean Coleman – a Caucasian male who has never felt the acrimonious burn of racial affront – to subscribe to the same viewpoints I and many other members of the African-American student community do.

Coleman’s Oct. 31 letter, “Placement of Parks article has nothing to do with race,” stated my stance on the placement of the article is the “victimized attitude” that fosters racism today. What he fails to realize is minorities are victimized, racism is still alive and, as long as there are people who will deny its existence, it will live long and prosper. Coleman, I wouldn’t expect you to relate, but I would expect you to understand. Just because something does not happen to you does not mean it does not happen. Just because something does not offend you does not mean it is not offensive.

This is all a matter of perspective. None of the black students on the campus would be here without Parks and the civil rights movement, whereas white students have never had hindrances to their matriculation at universities.

Ademola O. Sadik

Freshman

Finance

Column misgauges impact of offensive remarks

When I read Troy Sookdeo’s opinion column in Monday’s Diamondback, “A new low for character assassins,” I was struck with an utter sense of bewilderment. The two main points of his article, that Bill Bennett’s comment “you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down,” was justified, and the media is controlled by intellectually dishonest leftists are both equally absurd.

Sookdeo missed the reason open-minded individuals were offended by Bennett’s comment. While Bennett did go on to say it is wrong to abort every black baby in America, this is not why his comments were offensive. The real reason his comments were offensive was word choice. Bennett could have said, “you could abort every poor person” or “you could abort every male” or “you could abort every baby born in the inner city,” as all of these factors increase criminality. His choice to use African Americans as an example of people who commit crimes is inherently racist because it suggests race, not socioeconomic factors, is responsible for their criminality. Furthermore, when given the chance to clarify or apologize for his racist remarks, Bennett has refused to do so in all cases, merely saying he was taken out of context. Furthermore, the suggested genocide of a race to lower crime is a very controversial way to make a point. To clarify for those such as Sookdeo, nobody is suggesting Bennett wants to abort every black baby – we are simply offended at the implications and basic premise of the comments he made.

Tim Hiller

Sophomore

Microbiology

College Democrats secretary

Go out and vote next Tuesday

About 8,300 students live on the campus, and hundreds more live across Route 1 in the old town area and in apartment complexes around the campus. I’m pretty sure that makes them residents of this city – paying rent and taxes just like non-students. I think that’s enough reason for students to mobilize and vote in the city council elections. The council is a governing body that has considerable impact on students, and we’ve seen quite a bit of that over the past few semesters. Rent caps, safety codes and crime, among many others, are issues close to students.

If not to vote for a council representative, students should have been mobilized to go out en masse simply because there’s a ballot question dealing with something we’ve been talking about for several months – crime. So those of you who are registered to vote in College Park, make sure you’re out there come election day and vote. Take a look at what your candidates stand for at www.ci.college-park.md.us/CP_municipal_elections_2005.htm and vote for who you think will represent you best. We can’t just sit and ignore this election.

The reason those who ran on student-friendly platforms two years ago didn’t stick to their platforms is students didn’t hold them accountable. The whole point of elections is to hold your representatives accountable. Let’s start doing just that by voting on next Tuesday, Nov. 8, from 11 a.m. to 9 p.m.

Jahantab Siddiqui

President

University Commuters Association

Terp Watch

Listen to all sides of intelligent design debate

The Oct. 25 article “Flying Spaghetti Monster spreads its noodle” shows how intelligent design theory has been treated laughably in many circles. However, polls show most Americans believe evolution is pure hokum. Yet, many are not irrational religious literalists. They believe advocates of ID have proposed well-reasoned arguments against evolution. Because these arguments are held both in the mind and in the heart, it is impossible to deal with them by poking fun at them. Instead, as fellow citizens seeking truth, we should listen to all sides of the debate.

ID supporters find two main flaws with evolution: abiogenesis and irreducibly complex systems. Abiogenesis is the spontaneous emergence of life from non-life. In 1953, Dr. Stanley Miller showed amino acids, basic building blocks of life, could form in a “primordial soup.” ID supporters cite later research that calls Miller’s experiment into question.

However, this year, researchers at the University of Colorado demonstrated Miller’s model of the early Earth was most likely correct. Biologists have also published statistically probable explanations of how complex, self-replicating life can emerge from these basic components. The argument for irreducibly complex systems is repeatedly misstated in the press as meaning life is too complex to have emerged without a designer. Rather, it avows that some organs, such as the eye, could not have emerged through incremental selection because their complex components are highly interdependent. Nevertheless, biologists have demonstrated ways these supposedly unevolvable systems could have in fact easily emerged.

I am definitely not defending creationism. However, those supporting and opposing it are urged to read literature from both sides, and address what is actually being said. Only open discussion will do any good in resolving this debate.

John Wyrwas

Junior

Electrical engineering and physics